Hadith of Misra’ah
Sayyiduna Abu Hurairah رضي الله عنه narrates that the Messenger of Allah صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم said:
لا تصروا الإبل والغنم، فمن ابتاعها بعد فإنه بخير النظرين بعد أن يحتلبها، إن شاء أمسك، وإن شاء ردها وصاع تمر.
“Do not withhold the milk of she-camels and goats to deceive the buyer; whoever buys such an animal has the option of two things: either keep it with himself or return it to the owner along with one Sa’ of dates.”
These are the words of Sahih Muslim:
(Sahih al-Bukhari: 2148, Sahih Muslim: 1524)
من ابتاع شاة مصراة فهو فيها بالخيار ثلاثة أيام، إن شاء أمسكها ، وإن شاء ردها، ورد معها صاعا من تمر، لا سمراء .
“Whoever buys a goat with withheld milk has the option to return it within three days, and if he returns the goat, he must give one Sa’ of dates with it, not wheat.”
Hafiz Ibn Abd al-Barr رحمتہ اللہ (463 AH) states:
هو حديث مجتمع على صحته وتبوته من جهة النقل .
“There is consensus on the authenticity and proof of this hadith.”
(At-Tamhid li Ma Fi al-Muwatta min al-Ma’ani wal-Asanid: 208/18)
🌸Imam Tirmidhi رحمتہ اللہ says:
العمل على هذا الحديث عند أصحابنا منهم الشافعي، وأحمد، وإسحاق .
“Our companions Imam Shafi’i, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and Imam Ishaq ibn Rahwayh, may Allah have mercy on them, act upon this very hadith.”
(Sunan al-Tirmidhi, under hadith: 1252)
A companion narrates that the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said:
من اشترى شاة مصراة أو ناقة، … فهو منها بآخر النظرين، إذا هو حلب إن ردها، رد معها صاعا من طعام .
“Whoever buys a goat or she-camel whose milk has been stopped, after milking it, he has two options. If he wants to return it, then he must also give the owner one Sa’ of food (dates).”
(Musnad al-Imam Ahmad: 18819, and its chain is authentic)
Note:
Muṣarrātun refers to an animal whose milk has been stopped in its udders. Or it is said that if someone, intending to sell a goat or she-camel etc., keeps the milk stopped in the udders for a day or two to make the buyer believe it produces more milk, then this act is not permissible, forbidden, and deceitful.
Allama Ibn Daqiq al-‘Id, may Allah have mercy on him (702 AH), states:
لا خلاف أن التصرية حرام.
“There is no disagreement regarding the prohibition of stopping milk in the udders of an animal.”
(Ihkam al-Ahkam: 112/2)
This action makes the animal defective. If someone mistakenly buys such an animal and later discovers that defect in the animal, Shariah has permitted him to return it within three days. But when he returns the animal, he must give one Sa’ (two Seer four Chittank) of dates as compensation for the milk he has consumed.
Hadith Misra’ah and the People of Opinion
You have read that its chain of narration is authentic and mutawatir; the Imams of Hadith and Fiqh have reached consensus on it. However, the people of opinion reject this hadith by declaring it contrary to reason.
They have also raised various objections to this hadith. Allama Ibn al-Arabi Allah, in ‘Aridat al-Ahwadhi’, has provided eight concise and satisfactory answers to the objections raised against this hadith. Now, observe those objections and their answers here:
Objection No. ①:
It is written in the books of Ahl al-Ra’y that the hadith regarding Misrah, in which the payment of one Sa’ of dates is made obligatory, has no balance with milk; thus, this hadith is against Qiyas (analogy), and the narrator of the hadith, Sayyiduna Abu Huraira رضي الله عنه, is not a jurist:
على هذا ترك أصحابنا رواية أبي هريرة في مسألة المصراة بالقياس .
“Therefore, our companions have abandoned the hadith of Abu Huraira رضي الله عنه in the matter of Misrah.”
(Nur al-Anwar: 183, Usul al-Shashi: 75)
Answer
The hadith of Abu Huraira رضي الله عنه is a definitive text (nass) in the matter of Misrah, and it is not permissible to reject a definitive text in any way, and bringing Qiyas against a definitive text is an even more reprehensible act.
🌸 Imam Muhammad ibn Sirin رحمه الله used to say:
أول من قاس إبليس .
“(Against a definitive text) the first to use Qiyas was Iblis.”
(Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah: 86/14, and its chain is Hasan)
When the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, has decided that the animal should be returned within three days and for the milk consumed, one Sa’ of dates should be paid in compensation, it is surprising to make an analogy against this command of the Noble Prophet, peace be upon him.
🌸Allama Anwar Shah Kashmiri says:
هذا الجواب باطل لا يلتفت إليه .
“This answer is false and not worthy of attention.”
(Fayz al-Bari: 23/3)
He also says:
أما ما ذكر صاحب المنار وغيره من أن حديث المصراة يرويه أبو هريرة وهو غير فقيه، ورواية الذي ليس بفقيه غير معتبر إذا كانت خلاف القياس ، والقياس يقتضي بالفرق بين اللبن القليل والكثير، ولبن الناقة أو الشاة أو البقرة وغيرها من الأقيسة، فأقول : إن مثل هذا قابل الإسقاط من الكتب فإنه لا يقول به عالم وأيضا هذه الصابطة لم ترد عن أبي حنيفة وأبي يوسف ومحمد .
“This statement made by Sahib Minar and others that the hadith of Misrah narrated by our master Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him, is from a non-jurist and the narration of a non-jurist cannot be considered reliable against analogy, analogy implies that a difference will be made between less and more milk, similarly a difference will be made between the milk of a goat, she-camel, and cow, and other such analogies are mentioned. I (Anwar Shah) say: Such statements should be removed from books because no scholar can say such a thing, and likewise this principle is not transmitted from Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Abu Yusuf, and Imam Muhammad, etc.”
(Al-‘Urf al-Shadhi: 33/3)
🌸 Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, writes:
“He who criticized the hadith on the basis that its narrator Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him, was not a jurist, and therefore it is not applicable due to being against analogy,
هو كلام أذى قائله به نفسه .
“By saying this, he has harmed himself.”
(Fath al-Bari: 364/4)
🌸Hafiz Zahbi, may Allah have mercy on him (748 AH), writes:
قلت : المعتزلة تقول : لو أن المحدثين تركوا ألف حديث في الصفات والأسماء والرؤية والنزول، لأصابوا، والقدرية تقول : لو أنهم تركوا سبعين حديثا في إثبات القدر، والرافضة تقول : لو أن الجمهور تركوا من الأحاديث التي يدعون صحتها ألف حديث، لأصابوا، وكثير من ذوي الرأي يردون أحاديث شافه بها الحافظ المفتي المجتهد أبو هريرة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، ويزعمون أنه ما كان فقيها، ويأتوننا بأحاديت ساقطة، أو لا يعرف لها إسناد أصلا محتجين بها، قلنا : وللكل موقف بين يدي الله تعالى يا سبحان الله أحاديث رؤية الله فى الآخرة متواترة، والقرآن مصدق لها، فأين الإنصاف؟
“The Mu’tazila say that if the hadith scholars were to abandon a thousand hadiths regarding the names and attributes, vision, and descent of Allah, they would be doing the right thing. The Qadariyyah say that if the hadith scholars were to abandon seventy hadiths related to the affirmation of divine decree, it would be better. The Rawafid say that if the majority were to abandon those thousand hadiths whose authenticity they claim, it would be better. Most people of opinion narrate such hadiths which Hafiz, Mufti, Mujtahid Imam Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him, heard directly from the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, then they say he was not a jurist and themselves present fabricated hadiths or narrations without chains as evidence.
We say that everyone has to appear before Allah Almighty, and in the Hereafter, the hadiths about the vision of Allah are mutawatir and the Qur’an confirms them. Where is the justice in denying them?”
(Siyar A’lam al-Nubala by al-Dhahabi: 10/455)
The Miracle of Sayyiduna Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him:
🌸Qazi Abu Tayyib, may Allah have mercy on him, says:
We were sitting in a gathering at Jami Masjid Mansoor, when a young man from Khorasan came and asked a question regarding the issue of stopping milk in the teats of an animal. A Muhaddith presented a hadith narrated by Sayyiduna Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him. To this, that wicked person said: Abu Hurairah’s hadith is not acceptable.
Before the young man could finish his statement, a very large snake fell from the roof of the mosque. People started running away, and that young man also ran towards the snake. Later, the snake disappeared.
(Al-Muntazam by Ibn al-Jawzi: 106/17, and its chain is authentic)
The fatwa of Abdullah bin Mas’ud, may Allah be pleased with him, is also in accordance with the hadith of Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him:
من اشترى شاة محفلة فردها، فليرد معها صاعا من تمر .
“Whoever buys a goat that has been milked and then wants to return it, he must give a Sa’ of dates along with it.”
(Sahih al-Bukhari: 2149)
🌸Maulana Mahmood al-Hasan Sahib writes:
“The answer that Sahib Noor-ul-Anwar gives to the Hadith of Misra’ah is absolutely incorrect, because if Abu Hurairah is accepted as a non-jurist, then what will be the answer to the narration of Ibn Mas’ud رضي الله تعالى عنه, which Bukhari has authenticated?”
(Naqqar Mir Sheikh-ul-Hind: 143)
🌸Allama Anwar Shah Kashmiri Sahib says:
من يجترىء على أبي هريرة فيقول : إنه كان غير فقيه؟ ولو سلمنا، فقد يرويه أفقههم، أعني ابن مسعود أيضا، فيعود المحذور.
“Who can dare to call Sayyiduna Abu Hurairah رضي الله عنه a non-jurist? Even if we accept him as a non-jurist, the greatest jurist among the Companions, Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Mas’ud رضي الله عنه, has also narrated it, so the objection returns.”
(Faiz-ul-Bari: 231/3)
Objection No. ②:
🌸Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani Sahib says:
“Your ruling is not a general principle, but you stated it in a particular incident; the narrator has made it a general principle in meaning. In any case, since the narration of Misra’ah is against general principles.”
(Taqreer Tirmidhi, p. 678)
Answer:
This is a grave misconception, from which anyone can doubt the Shariah of Islam. The Prophet Muhammad’s صلى الله عليه وسلم command مَنِ اشْتَرى شَاةٌ includes the general term مَنْ and this ruling is generally applicable. Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Mas’ud’s fatwa also reflects this fact.
🌸 Allama Ibn Hazm (456 AH) says:
قالوا : هو مخالف للأصول؟ فقلنا : كذبتم، بل هو أصل من كبار الأصول، وإنما المخالف للأصول قولكم في الوضوء من القهقهة في الصلاة خاصة، وقولكم بأن القلس لا ينقض الوضوء أصلا إلا إذا كان ملء الفم، وقولكم في جعل الآبق أربعون درهما إذا كان على مسيرة ثلاث، وقولكم في عين الدابة ثمنها، والوضوء بالخمر، وسائر تلك الطوام التي هى بالمضاحك، وبما يأتي به المبرسم أشبه منها بشرائع الإسلام .
“People say that this hadith is against the principle (Qiyas), we say that this is your lie. This hadith is one of the great principles of Islam. It is against Qiyas that you say only loud laughter during prayer invalidates ablution, and the statement that vomiting a mouthful does not invalidate ablution at all. Also, saying that if a slave runs away for three days’ distance, he is liable to pay forty dirhams (fine), the penalty for damaging an animal’s eye is one-fourth of its total price, and ablution from wine (fermented Nabidh) and many such ridiculous issues, sometimes even a madman can say something more similar to Islamic principles than these.”
(Al-Muhalla: 67/6-68)
Objection No. ③:
🌸Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani Sahib writes:
“So when the milk is the property of the buyer, because he has fed and nurtured it, then demanding one Sa’ from it, where is the justice in that?”
(Taqreer Tirmidhi, p. 677)
Answer:
This decision belongs to the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, and every decision of his is based on justice and fairness. Believers should accept every decision of Allah and His Messenger wholeheartedly.
Allah Almighty says:
وما كان لمؤمن ولا مؤمنة إذا قضى الله ورسوله أمرا ان يكون لهم الخيرة من امرهم ومن يعص الله ورسوله فقد ضل ضللا مبينا.
(Al-Ahzab: 36)
“It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error.”
If the animal is returned before milking, it is not necessary to return one Sa’ of dates; this is a matter of consensus.
🌸 Hafiz Ibn Abd al-Barr, may Allah have mercy on him (463 AH), says:
هذا ما لا خلاف فيه فقف عليه .
“This is an agreed-upon matter, about which there is no difference, so accept it.”
(Al-Istidhkar: 534/6, At-Tamhid: 216/18)
Objection No. ④ :
🌸Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani Sahib says:
“Imam Sahib (Abu Hanifa) states that this practice (stopping milk in the animal’s teats to make it appear that the animal gives a lot of milk) is not a defect. The reason is that the essence of a contract (transaction) is that the sold item (animal) should be free from defects. This defect, which is in the milk, is in its fruits, benefits, and excesses, which does not affect the essence of the sale itself, whether the milk is less or more. Therefore, it is not permissible to annul the sale or return the sold animal. Rather, this has become a settled principle, and neither the buyer nor the judge has the right to annul it.”
(Dars Tirmidhi, p. 675)
Answer:
The right to return the animal is granted by the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, and the right given by him cannot be taken away by anyone. Every child is aware that withholding milk from the animal’s udders to convince that the animal produces a lot of milk is a clear deception and defect. When the buyer purchased the animal after seeing the abundance of milk, but later found out that the animal produces very little milk according to the paid price, this is a clear defect. Despite this defect, if the buyer does not want to annul the sale, then he may not do so; it depends on his choice.
Objection No. ⑤:
🌸 Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani Sahib says:
“This is another matter that if the seller and the buyer mutually agree to return, then it is permissible.”
(Taqreer Tirmidhi, p. 675)
Answer:
There is no room for mutual consent here; only the will and consent of Shariah can prevail. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) granted the buyer the authority in these words:
إن شاء أمسك، وإن شاء ردها وصاع تمر .
“If he wishes, he may keep it, and if he wishes, he may return the animal along with one Sa’ of dates.”
If the buyer wishes to exercise this right, then according to the Prophetic command, it is obligatory upon the seller to take back the animal; otherwise, he will be considered to be opposing the Hadith and will be sinful.
Objection No. ⑥:
🌸Maulana Muhammad Sarfaraz Khan Safdar Sahib writes:
“This Hadith contradicts the Quranic principle ﴿فاعتدوا عليه بمثل ما اعتدى عليكم)
, which means that compensation for a lost item is by equivalent value, whether the equivalent is physical or conceptual, i.e., the price and ‘one Sa’ of dates’ are neither equivalent to milk nor equal in price to milk.”
(Al-Kalam al-Mufid, pp. 272-273, Khazain al-Sunan, p. 548)
Answer:
◈ The method of rejecting Hadith by declaring it contradictory to the Quran is by no means the approach of Ahl al-Sunnah, but rather the approach of Hadith deniers and opponents.
🌸 Maulana Sarfaraz Khan Safdar Sahib writes:
“The authentic Hadiths of the Sahih Sitta do not contradict any verse of the Holy Quran in any way. If someone perceives a contradiction between any Hadith of Sahih Sitta and any verse of the Holy Quran, it is a result of their own misunderstanding. Such superficial contradictions are even found among some verses of the Holy Quran itself.”
(Shoq-e-Hadith, p. 153)
Despite this, it is unclear why Safdar Sahib is rejecting the Hadith of Musarrah by declaring it contrary to the Quran?
◈ This verse relates to punishments (Ta’zirat), whereas this Hadith relates to wealth; compensation for wealth is sometimes exact and sometimes not exact.
◈If one Sa’ of dates is neither like milk in form nor like milk in meaning, i.e., price, then this simile is Shariah-based, because the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ has defined the simile of milk, and where the Prophet ﷺ has defined something, no one should have the audacity to deny it.
Objection No. ⑦ :
🌸Safdar Sahib further writes:
“This hadith is against the hadith of ‘Al-Kharaj bil-Daman’
, meaning that the person who bears the loss of something will also have the profit of that thing. Since the buyer bears the expenses of the milk-producing animal, he is also entitled to its milk, which is usually more than the price of fodder. In return, he does not have to give anything to the seller, whereas in the hadith of Al-Misraṭah, one Sa’ of dates must be given.”
(Al-Kalam Al-Mufeed, p. 273)
Answer:
◈All these matters were in the consideration of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, yet he ordered to give even one Sa’ of dates. This is an unnecessary creation of contradiction in the hadiths, complicating simple issues. The hadith “Al-Kharaj bil-Dhaman” is general, and the hadith Al-Misra’ah is specific; when there is a conflict between a general and a specific, the specific is given precedence, thus the contradiction is resolved.
Imam Tahawi (may Allah have mercy on him) considered the hadith Al-Misra’ah to be contradictory to the hadith “Al-Kharaj bil-Dhaman,” to which Maulana Anwar Shah Kashmiri says:
أقول : إن هذا الجواب ليس بذاك القوي .
“This is not a solid (satisfactory) answer.”
(Al-‘Urf al-Shadhi: 368/1)
Objection No. ⑧:
🌸Maulana Sarfaraz Khan Safdar writes:
“Sale of food for food on ‘Nasi’ah (credit) is not permissible. Milk and dates are food, so it is clear, and ‘Nasi’ah (credit) is also obvious. What is the time for milking the milk, and what is the time for paying one Sa’ of dates? And the hadith Al-Misra’ah is against this.”
(Al-Kalam al-Mufid, p. 273)
Answer:
This is not a sale (buying and selling), rather after the sale was concluded, a defect appeared in the form of a shortage of milk, which caused the buyer to annul the contract. At that time, the Prophetic ruling is to pay in one Sa’ of dates; it is not correct to call this a sale.
As for the prohibition of selling food on credit with food, that relates to certain commodities, and milk is not included among those commodities.
Objection No. ⑨:
🌸Maulana Sarfaraz Safdar Sahib further writes:
“Selling an estimate (jazaf) against a measured and weighed item (kayl wa mawzun) is not permissible, and here milk is an estimate (jazaf) and it is majbul (compulsory), whereas ‘one Sa’ of dates’ is known and the Hadith al-Misr is against this established rule.”
(Al-Kalam al-Mufeed, p. 273)
Answer:
When this is not a sale at all, then how can it be against the established rule? According to the Prophetic ruling, the equivalent of all the milk is one Sa’ of dates.
Objection No. ⑩:
🌸Maulana Sarfaraz Khan Safdar Sahib writes:
“Imam Tahawi states that the Hadith of Misra’ah is earlier, and the ruling on the prohibition of Riba (usury) comes after it, and since Riba (usury) is proven to be prohibited by definitive texts and authentic Hadiths, therefore its ruling is abrogated.”
(Al-Kalam Al-Mufid, p. 273)
Answer:
The claim of Imam Tahawi, may Allah have mercy on him, is baseless; he often makes such claims.
🌸Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, writes:
لكنه يكثر من ادعائه النسخ بالاحتمال فجرى على عادته .
“He, may Allah have mercy on him, has the habit of often claiming abrogation merely on the basis of possibility.”
(Fath al-Bari: 478/9)
🌸Allama Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him (728 AH), says:
نجد كثيرا من الناس ممن يخالف الحديث الصحيح من أصحاب أبي حنيفة أو غيرهم يقول : هذا منسوخ وقد اتخذوا هذا مجنة؛ كل حديث لا يوافق مذهبهم يقولون : هو منسوخ من غير أن يعلموا أنه منسوخ ولا ينبتوا ما الذي نسخه.
“We have found many companions of Imam Abu Hanifa, may Allah be pleased with him, who oppose authentic Hadith and say that it is abrogated; it is their custom that every Hadith which does not conform to their doctrine, they declare it abrogated without knowledge, and they cannot prove this Hadith to be abrogated by evidence.”
(Majmu’ al-Fatawa: 150/21)
The fatwa of Abdullah bin Masood, may Allah be pleased with him, is clear evidence that this hadith is not abrogated.
Objection No. ⑪:
🌸Maulana Sarfaraz Khan Safdar Sahib writes:
“Imam Tahawi states that this hadith is against نهى عن بيع الكالي بالكالي يعني الدين بالدین
, meaning neither has the buyer yet received the full milk nor has the seller received the Sa’ of dates, so this is a debt upon a debt, from which there is a prohibition. This narration is also reported as Marfoo’ from Rafi’ bin Khadij
and also Marfoo’ from Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar, their narration
etc.”
(Al-Kalam al-Mufid, pp. 273-274)
Answer:
This hadith
is found, its chain is “weak” because Musa bin Ubaidah Zubdi is “weak.”
🌸Hafiz Ibn Kathir, may Allah have mercy on him (771 AH), states:
إن الربدي ضعيف عند الأكثرين .
“Zubdi is considered weak by most hadith scholars.”
(Tafsir Ibn Kathir: 148/4)
In the chain of narration of Darqutni and Hakim, there is Musa bin Uqbah.
🌸Allama Zailai, may Allah have mercy on him, writes:
غلطهما البيهقي وقال : إنما هو موسى بن عبيدة الربدي .
“Imam Bayhaqi, may Allah have mercy on him, declared Darqutni and Hakim, may Allah have mercy on them, to be mistaken in calling him Musa bin Uqbah. He also stated that he is actually Musa bin Ubaidah Rabzi.”
(Nasb al-Rayah: 40/4)
Therefore, calling this narration ‘Sahih’ by Imam Hakim, may Allah have mercy on him, etc., is not correct.
In the chain of narration, Ibrahim bin Abi Yahya Aslami is “weak.” In the Hadith of Misrah, where the option of return within three days is given, for the milk consumed during those days, he will give one Sa’ of dates in exchange. This is not a sale of milk and dates, but a Prophetic ruling, and the fatwa of the jurist of the Ummah, Sayyiduna Ibn Mas’ud, may Allah be pleased with him, indicates that the Hadith of Misrah is not against any text of Shariah.
Objection number ⑫:
🌸Maulana Sarfaraz Khan Safdar Sahib writes:
“The great scholars of Deoband act upon this hadith; it is mentioned in Faiz al-Bari (231/2), Al-‘Urf al-Shadhi (236), and Bawadir al-Nawadir (107) that the hadith al-Misraṭah is related to reconciliation and consultation, and reconciliation, honesty, and consultation are matters superior to the analogical principle of equality.”
(Khaza’in al-Sunan pp. 49-50)
Answer:
The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ gave a ruling and established a principle for a decision. Therefore, this condition cannot be imposed without any evidence that the date measure (Sa’) must be returned only if both the seller and buyer agree. That is absolutely not the case.
🌸Hafiz Ibn Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on him (751 AH), writes:
المحكم الصحيح الصريح في مسألة المصراة بالمتشابه من القياس، وزعمهم أن هذا حديث يخالف الأصول فلا يقبل، فيقال : الأصول كتاب الله وسنة رسوله وإجماع أمته والقياس الصحيح الموافق للكتاب والسنة، فالحديث الصحيح أصل بنفسه ، فكيف يقال : الأصل يخالف نفسه؟ هذا من أبطل الباطل، والأصول في الحقيقة اثنان لا ثالث لهما كلام الله، وكلام رسوله، وما عداهما فمردود إليهما؛ فالسنة أصل قائم بنفسه، والقياس فرع، فكيف يرد الأصل بالفرع ؟ قال الإمام أحمد : إنما القياس أن تقيس على أصل، فأما أن تجيء إلى الأصل فتهدمه، ثم تقيس، فعلى أي شيء تقيس؟ وقد تقدم بيان موافقة حديث المصراة للقياس، وإبطال قول من زعم أنه خلاف القياس، وأنه ليس في الشريعة حكم يخالف القياس الصحيح، وأما القياس الباطل فالشريعة كلها مخالفة له، ويا لله العجب، كيف وافق الوضوء بالنبيذ المشتد للأصول حتى قبل وخالف خبر المصراة للأصول حتى رد .
“(The Hanafis) have abandoned the clear and explicit text in the issue of Misrah due to Qiyas (analogical reasoning) and have assumed that this hadith is against the principle (Qiyas), therefore it will not be accepted. In response to them, it should be said that the principles are the Book of Allah, the Sunnah of His Messenger, the consensus of the Ummah, and correct Qiyas, and correct Qiyas is that which is in accordance with the Book and Sunnah. Thus, a correct hadith itself is an independent principle; how can it be said that a principle is against itself? This is the most false statement. In reality, there are only two principles, no third one, namely the Qur’an and Hadith, and everything else will be referred back to them. It is clear that hadith is a principle and Qiyas is a branch; how can the principle be abandoned because of the branch? Although it has already been explained that the hadith of Misrah is according to Qiyas, it has also been shown that considering it against Qiyas is false. Moreover, no ruling of Shariah is against correct Qiyas. As for incorrect Qiyas, then the entire Shariah is against it. It is very surprising how ablution with thick Nabidh was accepted as according to Qiyas, but the hadith of Misrah was abandoned considering it against Qiyas?”
(I’lam al-Muwaqqi’in: 311/2)
Summary:
The hadith is authentic with a continuous chain and is proven correct in every aspect, and its narrator Sayyiduna Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) is a jurist. Declaring him a non-jurist out of bias for one’s own sect and religion is an extremely inappropriate attitude and is a clear insult to the Companion of the Prophet.
Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi, saddened by such circumstances, says:
“Most followers, even the elite, are so rigid that if they come across a verse or hadith contrary to the statement of a Mujtahid, their hearts do not feel relief and joy; rather, initially, there is rejection in the heart, then the thought of interpretation arises, no matter how far-fetched it may be and even if there is another strong evidence opposing it. In fact, the Mujtahid’s argument on this issue may be nothing but conjecture, and the interpretation itself may not hold weight in their own heart, but they consider interpretation necessary for the support of the religion. The heart does not accept abandoning the Mujtahid’s statement and acting upon the authentic hadith.”
(Tazkira-tur-Rasheed by Aashiq Ilahi: 131/1)
Therefore, we should accept and act upon any hadith proven from the Holy Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. This is where goodness lies and this is the path to safety.
